JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel approved a plan on Sunday to hold and deport thousands of illegal migrant workers whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a "threat to the character of the country".Hard to imagine an American politician saying something so refreshing as illegal immigration being "a threat to the character of the country", mainly because, in the minds of most of our so-called leaders, the only character America has is that of taking in foreigners and actively dissolving its native people. Israel's leaders appear to actually care about its people and want to ensure continuity of same.
In remarks to the cabinet, Netanyahu said thousands of migrants who have entered Israel mainly through Egypt in past years would be housed at a special holding facility, due to built in Israel's southern Negev desert.
"We must stop the mass entry of illegal migrant workers because of the very serious threat to the character and future to the state of Israel," he said, adding Israelis who gave them work would face severe fines to make their employment unviable.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is suing the state of Arizona for trying to stop things like this:
In all seriousness, there's a lot to be said for making the U.S. more like Israel, and this is a good example. As various people have noted, the problem isn't Israel, which is just doing its best to look out for its own national interest and survial, like any sane country - the problem is us...
ReplyDeleteTschafer
Makes one long for an American Netanyahu....
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that Netanyahu's co-ethnics are doing everything they can to prevent the United States from carrying out the same policies. To the Jews, when Israel does something it is because of security but when the United States wants to do the same thing it is because of racism.
ReplyDeleteSwitch to PR in CA to limit the influence of "rotten boroughs" largely populated by illegal aliens and other non-citizens. For example, in a unicameral legislature of 120, 40% of the assembly could be elected by SMD(48) and 60& (72) could be elected by statewide open list PR. Under (for example) German rules for mixed-member proportionality, total seats by party are determined by second (party PR) vote, but no one who wins a constituency can be deprived of a seat on that basis. Discrepancies are resolved by what is normally an addition of a few seats to the body.
ReplyDeleteNo panacea, but an attempt at fundamental fairness,common sense and buying time.
They are completely uncompromising when it comes to their own continuity and survival.
ReplyDeleteSo should we be.
Anon.
Not only would we be better off with an American Netanyahu in the White House, but we'd be better off with our own Stanley Fischer (the current head of the Bank of Israel) at the Fed. Compare the trajectory of the Israeli shekel versus the US dollar over the last five years.
ReplyDelete"The problem is that Netanyahu's co-ethnics are doing everything they can to prevent the United States from carrying out the same policies."
Just this year, you had two of his co-ethnics run for state-wide office in California opposing open borders. The winners (in the primaries) were WASPs who are pro open borders.
Correction: one of the winners in the respective primary races was a pro open borders Jew, and the other was a pro open borders WASP. Nevertheless the general point stands: the dichotomy on this issue isn't between Jews and Gentiles but between the political establishment and a good 70-80% of the country.
ReplyDelete"In all seriousness, there's a lot to be said for making the U.S. more like Israel, and this is a good example. As various people have noted, the problem isn't Israel, which is just doing its best to look out for its own national interest and survial, like any sane country - the problem is us...
ReplyDeleteTschafer"
Who is "us?" The problem we have in America is a Jewish establishment that is fanatically commited to open borders and demonizing white people. Israel and its partisans in the US also manipulate US foreign policy in ways that are harmful to US interests, get thousands of Americans killed and cost many billions of dollars. Israel is a major problem for us.
Just this year, you had two of his co-ethnics run for state-wide office in California opposing open borders. The winners (in the primaries) were WASPs who are pro open borders.
ReplyDeleteWho are these unsung heroes?
Just to illustrate how difficult is to deal with illegal immigrants is the fact that not even Netanyahu is talking about expulsing the illegals, because the West would not suffer the terrible cruelty and inhumanity of sending them back to their own shitholes. So the idea is to build a large camp for them in a desertic part of the country, provide them free water, food and medicines, Red Cross visits and so on, hoping that others will think twice before infiltrating the country, and that ultimately they the,selves will ask to leave. I am not sure it will work, but I have no better ideas. The whole liberal world is watching us, so we cannot do what our neighbors like Egypt and Jordan do in this case. They shoot them in the desert, where there is no CNN.
ReplyDeleteNetanyahu is also trying to negotiate (and by negotiate, I mean "bribe") with various African countries to take the illegals.
ReplyDeleteWhether this will succeed remains to be seen.
"the idea is to build a large camp for them in a desertic part of the country, provide them free water, food and medicines, Red Cross visits and so on"
ReplyDeleteYeah, J,
But the Jews in power in America won't even let US do that much.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio in AZ's tent cities in the desert for the illegals? Can't have that, says ADL and AJC.
not even Netanyahu is talking about expulsing the illegals, because the West would not suffer the terrible cruelty and inhumanity of sending them back to their own shitholes.
ReplyDeleteYou should read the story, which does mention deporting the illegals.
"Israel is a major problem for us."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Israel isn't doing anything that the U.S. shouldn't also be doing - in fact, in the past, we have actually done all the things that Israel is accused of doing. We have poured money into foreign elections at a rate that makes AIPAC look like a piker, and a good thing too, in many cases. The problem is in our own country, which is what I meant by "us". Leftists, Jews and non-Jews, are the problem. If everyone in Israel were to march into the sea, and Israel would revert back to the Arabs, the national suicide of the United States would not be delayed by one second - in fact, it might speed up. Anyone who thinks that the problem is in Tel Aviv rather than D.C. is delusional.
Tschafer
Not on-topic, but I would like to point that Auster's characterization of Julian Assange as a liberal/leftist agitator is not accurate.
ReplyDeleteFrom his Forbes' interview :
"
Would you call yourself a free market proponent?
Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector...
How do your leaks fit into that?
To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.
There's the famous lemon example in the used car market. It's hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can't get a good price, even when they have a good car.
By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there's a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they're dealing with.
You've developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.
Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I've been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don't come from nowhere.
It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.
WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.
But in the meantime, there could be a lot of pain from these scandals, obviously.
Pain for the guilty.
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/
"
Leftists, Jews and non-Jews, are the problem.
ReplyDeleteYes. But to a remarkably large extent the modern American left is a Jewish movement. It's impossible to imagine it existing, absent Jewish financial and intellectual firepower. The other members of the left, the black and Hispanic majorities and the white minority, are followers rather than leaders.
Question for Bibi: If you expel all of the migrants, who will clean Jewish lavatories, pluck Jewish chickens and get down and dirty in Jewish vegetable farms and construction sites? Surely not the chosen ones.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Netanyahu knows how to talk but not take action. In August you wrote "we wanna be like Israel" because of a decision to deport 400 illegal immigrant families. It's December, and not a single one has been deported.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for Bibi: If you expel all of the migrants, who will clean Jewish lavatories, pluck Jewish chickens and get down and dirty in Jewish vegetable farms and construction sites? Surely not the chosen ones.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Meek, mild-mannered, and legal Thai and Filipino guest workers.
Construction work is also heavily Arab.
Answer: Meek, mild-mannered, and legal Thai and Filipino guest workers.
ReplyDeleteConstruction work is also heavily Arab.
Any society that requires immigrants of differing races to do work that they themselves feel is too undignified to do themselves, is doomed.
Any society that requires immigrants of differing races to do work that they themselves feel is too undignified to do themselves, is doomed.
ReplyDeleteWell, who can say what the future holds?
Perhaps one day the Israeli government will run out of money to finance the hordes of children of those 9-10 TFR Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the world will have a new supply of Jewish "proles".
Just this year, you had two of his co-ethnics run for state-wide office in California opposing open borders
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that there are only two Jews in the United States?
"Compare the trajectory of the Israeli shekel versus the US dollar over the last five years."
ReplyDeleteThe Israeli banking system is controlled and populated by their own co-ethnics whereas the US banking system is a gigantic and ongoing fraud against the american people.
"Just this year, you had two of his co-ethnics run for state-wide office in California opposing open borders."
So shameless. So dishonest.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf
Or how about the $500 million dollars recently given by the hijacked Ford foundation to the AJC to further promote the immigration-genocide of white americans?
I kinda think the Poizner campaign was a PR stunt. "Look, Poizner's a Jew and he's anti-immigration!" That seems to have been the main point of it. Or maybe it was just a ploy to win votes.
ReplyDeleteEither way, the guy's a billionaire. What has he done with all his money to fight for immigration restriction? If nothing, then what are we to make of his pro-immigration stance during the campaign?
People also used to cite Ron Unz as a prominent example of an anti-immigration Jew - look how that has worked out.
All this just proves my point - the problem is with American leftists (yes, many of whom are Jews, and many of whom hate Israel, by the way) not with Israel. All Israel is doing is trying to survive, as a country and as a ethny - which is exactly what we should be doing. I'd be very surprised if your average Jew in Israel gave two flying hoots about American immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteTschafer
Also off topic...
ReplyDeleteJulian Assange may or may not be a leftist, but his targets are those usually homed in on by leftists - the U.S. Military, U.S. State Department, big banks and big business, etc. He's not leaking documents about the ongoing conspiracy not to enforce America's immigration laws, or how the Ivies discriminate against certain groups in admissions, or the corrupt diversion of almost all aid to the Third World, or the U.N.'s laughable, child-raping, cholera-spreading "peacekeeping" forces, and I'm sure there's plenty of red meat there, if he wanted to look for it - so Auster had a basis for thinking he was a leftist. It doesn't really matter if Assange calls himself a monarchist, a distributist, a Capuchin, or a libertarian - objectively speaking, he's a leftist - just like a lot of other "conservatives" and "libertarians"
Tschafer
The Jerusalem Post has run some good articles on these issues. Parts of south Tel Aviv look like south Chicago and Israelis are no more keen to live there than non-black Americans are in south Chicago.
ReplyDeleteA complex part of the problem is how to define who should have "living rights" in a modern/post-modern state that is not based on racial homogeneity (and none are, not even "homogeneous" countries) and wishes to preserve the hard lessons of the 20th century. Say Israel wants to throw out African arrivals. How to do so without appearing to question the value of black Jewish Israelis?
For the wandrins and the atbotls of the world it's simple. You just toss out both, and any fortunate enough to be granted leave to remain can be sterilized and told to thank their lucky stars.
But ridding yourself of the unwanted at the bottom of the totem pole merely creates a new bottom, and who is to say they shouldn't be gotten rid of too? Keep going that way and the world will soon be left with no more than a couple hundred genetic worthies to carry on evolution's upward trek. There's immense psychological resistance to even glancing in such a direction.
Yet the problems created by the racially and culturally greatly unlike remain and continue to be compounded by restricting debate to the rate of immigration rather than fact or process of it -- and just think how much further there is yet until the issue of mixed territory is addressed.
Well, Silver, one would assume that the African arrivals are not citizens and that the Black Israelis are - that seems like a pretty good place to start. There are also legal ways to immigrate to both Israel and the U.S. - throwing out anyone who does not comply with those procedures would seem to be pretty much self-evident as well. As for throwing out the "bottom" of the citizen class, don't be absurd. Every country in the world is so far from this now, bringing it up almost violates Godwin's Law.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that you're making this problem a lot more difficult than it should be. Israel should have every right to say "Israel is the Jewish State. If you're not Jewish, you are not welcome as a permanent resident." Just as the U.S. should have no problem saying "The U.S. has grown great with a certain ethnic and racial balance, and we'd like to keep it that way, so any new immigration has to reflect this". Both the U.S. and Israel did these things within living memory, without leading to genocide or eugenics, and I can't see why it would be so problematic now, at least morally speaking.
Tschafer
Leftists, Jews and non-Jews, are the problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ashkenazis are the problem with leftists.
If everyone in Israel were to march into the sea, and Israel would revert back to the Arabs, the national suicide of the United States would not be delayed by one second
If every Ashkenazi in America were to march into the sea, leftism would be utterly broken.
Anyone who thinks that the problem is in Tel Aviv rather than D.C. is delusional.
True, but I'm not saying that. Tel Aviv is the thin edge of the wedge here in America, though. Anyone who can't see that is delusional.
All this just proves my point - the problem is with American leftists (yes, many of whom are Jews, and many of whom hate Israel, by the way) not with Israel. All Israel is doing is trying to survive, as a country and as a ethny - which is exactly what we should be doing. I'd be very surprised if your average Jew in Israel gave two flying hoots about American immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteToo true. But the people who are screwing us seem to care a great deal about Israel, so that's where we should be putting pressure. Israel should be held rhetorically hostage until American Ashkenazis start dealing from the top of the deck.
Westerners are not going to tolerate superior rights for Jews (ethnostate for me, panmixia for thee) forever. The excuses Ashkenazis give for this "I have my cake and eat yours, too" schtick are far too thin, the world shrinking far too rapidly, for that.
But ridding yourself of the unwanted at the bottom of the totem pole merely creates a new bottom, and who is to say they shouldn't be gotten rid of too? Keep going that way and the world will soon be left with no more than a couple hundred genetic worthies to carry on evolution's upward trek.
ReplyDeleteSlippery slope fallacy.
There's obviously a split between WNism and what you're criticizing, since the vast majority want to keep our bottom, considering them our problem.
Another answer is to set a reasonable threshold, like "mean IQ above the bar for maintaining an orderly civilization," e.g., 95-100.
"For the wandrins and the atbotls of the world it's simple."
ReplyDeleteYes it's simple. Attack the people actively engaged in the attempted genocide of my people.
"Israel should be held rhetorically hostage"
ReplyDeleteNo one should be "held hostage" for trying to defend their own country and people, Svigor - I'd think that someone coming from your position would agree with that. It seems to me that you are arguing that Israel isn't doing anything that any other country does or would do, but we have to denounce them anyway, to put pressure on American Jews. This strikes me as being immoral at best, and counterproductive at worst. No one should be held "hostage" - the Americans responsible for our slow motion suicide, Jewish, and non-Jewish, should be held ACCOUNTABLE, and removed from power. And I'm sorry, I don't see Tel Aviv as being the "thin end" of anything - socialists were trying to reform America out of existance long before Israel existed. I guess I'm just delusional...
Tschafer
If every Ashkenazi in America were to march into the sea, leftism would be utterly broken.
ReplyDeleteThis is what all comes down to, of course.
Tell me, Svig, what would you do if you found this statement to be untrue? How would you go on?
If you got rid of all the Jews in America, leftism would still thrive. I think that should be fairly obvious. Even if Jews are disproportionately more leftist relative to gentiles, in absolute terms there are still many leftists in the gentile population. Furthermore, while Jews may be disproportionately leftist relative to gentiles, they're also much smaller in numbers relative to the gentile population in absolute terms. Your argument is like saying that because blacks commit crimes at disproportionate rates relative to whites, if only we got rid of blacks there would be no crime whatsoever. You seem to confuse a relative comparison with an absolute assessment.
ReplyDeleteWhat your argument really misses out on though is the fact that Western Europe today is even more leftist than the United States and it hardly has any significant Ashkenazim population. I wonder how you would explain that anomaly.
while Jews may be disproportionately leftist relative to gentiles, they're also much smaller in numbers relative to the gentile population in absolute terms.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. But according to HBD we should not expect all leftists to be interchangeable units. Some will be effective, others ineffective. Some will be leaders, others followers. Some will occupy influential positions, others will not. Mere numbers mean nothing. You are fond of claiming that everything of worth is society comes from those with IQ's over 120. The question then becomes, which segment of leftists do Jews occupy? The high IQ effective influential leaders, or the low IQ ineffective and non-influential followers.
You can't just abandon the premises of all the arguments you make here and pretend that all men are equal when it suits you.
@Severn
ReplyDeleteSo let's examine the number of gentiles with IQs over 120 who are drawn from the 200 million non-Hispanic white population overall. An IQ of 120 constitutes the top 10% of the white distribution, meaning that we're looking at 20 million potential candidates here. It's been suggested by some that high IQ people tend to be disproportionately leftist relative to lower IQ people. If we assume that only 1/2 of that 20 million IQ 120+ population qualifies as being leftist in the sense that Svigor defines the term, we basically have 10 million leftist gentile whites. 10 million is larger than the entire Askenazi population of roughly 7 million or so living in the United States.
An IQ of 120 constitutes the top 10% of the white distribution, meaning that we're looking at 20 million potential candidates here.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, but I listed a number of factors other than IQ. The point in bringing up IQ was merely to remind you that in certain circumstances, you are aware that raw numbers do not predict an outcome.
But since you want to talk IQ, what percentage of IQ120+ non-Jews are politically active? Far less than the percentage of similar Jews, I'd say.
"Israel should be held rhetorically hostage"
ReplyDeleteNo one should be "held hostage" for trying to defend their own country and people, Svigor - I'd think that someone coming from your position would agree with that.
Sure they should, if they're beneficiaries of my country and people being squeezed into race-replacement.
It goes like this. Ashkenazis in America are squeezing me and mine, so I'm going to squeeze theirs. Simple. You grab my cousin, I grab yours. Then we do a swap.
It seems to me that you are arguing that Israel isn't doing anything that any other country does or would do, but we have to denounce them anyway, to put pressure on American Jews.
When do I denounce Israel? I don't denounce Israel. If anything, I hold Israel up as a model for people of European ancestry. I save the denunciations for Ashkenazis outside Israel, or at least Ashkenazis putting their noses into our business.
And I'm sorry, I don't see Tel Aviv as being the "thin end" of anything
Then you aren't looking closely enough. Every time we point out that a) Israel's an ethnostate, and b) Israel's ethnic group has a diaspora here of about 6 million souls who are the brains of the outfit race-replacing us, mainly by demonizing ethno-patriotism, we pants liberals (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc.), and expose the entire western order for the sham it really is.
This is what all comes down to, of course.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by that?
Tell me, Svig, what would you do if you found this statement to be untrue?
Well, at the very least, leftism would be greatly diminished. There's no arguing that, and I don't make contingency plans for "what happens if tomorrow it's all unicorns and rainbows?"
In other words, I'll wing it.
Actually, unicorns and rainbows is especially apt; I'd throw a party, joyful in the knowledge that I don't have to worry about crossing the Ashkenazis, the worlds most ethnocentric, wealthy, tough, and protected group, any more.
It's a real laugh, this monumentally self-serving, self-fulfilling notion Ashkenazis have in their head that "anti-Semitism" precedes the "justifications." Nope, the cart's behind the horse, guys.
I'd throw a party if I woke up tomorrow knowing Ashkenazis aren't the problem. It'd be like finding out you never had to play the Yankees to win the pennant. 'Cept that's far too tame a metaphor.
I'd throw a party if I woke up tomorrow knowing Ashkenazis aren't the problem.
ReplyDeleteHaha, I doubt that. You would be a lot more depressed, and we'd be seeing far less of that Svigorian caustic wit.
You should be thankful that you were born a white American, and not, say, an Englishman in the UK.
It goes like this. Ashkenazis in America are squeezing me and mine, so I'm going to squeeze theirs. Simple. You grab my cousin, I grab yours. Then we do a swap.
ReplyDeleteConstant repetition of this tit-for-tat tribalistic logic doesn't make it any more appealing to your audience, no matter how much sense it makes.
In the end, you're still asking them to do harm to an entity they admire.
Leftism schmeftism. Non-White leftists have no trouble defending the interests of their people. In fact, the natural home of racialism is probably on the left, as it was among White Americans in the early 20th century, and probably maintained a stronger presence there than on the right until the 1960's (the southern politicians who resisted desegregation were largely New Deal Democrats).
ReplyDeleteRightism is not exactly good for White people. Reagan, the Bushes, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Tea Parties, etc. - are these people really any better than their counterparts on the left? If not, then can "leftism" really be said to be the problem?
Thanks B Lode. I had fun writing that. I've noticed that Sailer and I have similar temperaments, though as you point out, I'm a lot more crotchety.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm glad you like it, because there's more! I had a whole 'nother comment typed up that I forgot to post last night. It was supposed to go before the FMJ coup de grace but oh well.
Now, when did I ever deny that my loyalty was first and foremost to this country? :)
What kind of question is that son? It seems to be out of left field. It's almost like me asking you when I ever denied my love of baseball. Total non-sequitur, son.
Clearly you have a vastly different definition of what it means for something to be for the good of the nation than I do.
What do you mean? How do you know?
As far as I can tell, you'd be perfectly fine with America regressing if only that meant we could kick out all of the Jews and East Asians and Indians.
Not at all. I think we'd be better off by advancing our own interests, not those of Jews, east Asians, and Indians. Try to forget all that provincial racial thinking; you're a true-blue American patriot now, try to think like one. America first!
Clearly, it's in America's best interests to get more than we give. If we give China X access to our markets, we should get X+Y access to Chinese markets in return. If we allow X barriers to entry for Chinese immigrants, we should get X-Y barriers to entry for American immigrants to China. If we give China a dollar, we should get a dollar-five from China.
And you understand this perfectly, what with your first loyalty being to America and all. (I'm going to excuse you for the strange question you asked me, and write it off to your being newly sworn in and all. Ink's still fresh. Maybe you were reading the form upside down or something. No matter, you've got the gist now, right?)
Attaboy, go get 'em, tiger!
I disagree. I view America as more of a proposition nation rather than as a nation defined explicitly by race.
My position exactly. I'm trying to get you to that page, is all. You say your first loyalty is to America, but then you're going off the rails answering questions I didn't ask. I'm not interested in what we've already got, son. I want MORE. America first, son.
I've stated that I believe that white Americans have a right to remain the majority in the country, but have no right to establish themselves as the only ethnicity in the nation.
Son, for God's sake, try and stay with the conversation! You sound like a broken jukebox or something. This is Thurdsay, December 2nd, 2010, year of our Lord. You aren't pasting in comments you've made on old threads, are you?
Let me articulate an even more precise formulation of my position.
[snip]
Damnit son, I'm starting to feel like Foghorn Leghorn trying to talk sense into the little Chickenhawk here. In his immortal words: You're doing it all wrong, boy!. I'm talking about how we serve a first, last, and only interest in the welfare of the United States of America and you're coming at me with some crap about international relations that got nothin' to do with us! Get your head in the game, son!
I get that you want to advance our interests by importing more Chinese and Indians. I think everyone here's gotten that by now. I want you to move on, son. Expand your horizons. Diversify your interests. There's a whole world out there we can make more useful to Team USA, and you're still harping on proposition nations and cognitive elitism!
Haha, I doubt that.
ReplyDeleteThat's the danger of asking questions for rhetorical effect. You may just get an answer you don't want to hear. You did, and an honest one. Now you've wound up looking like the @$$hole. Why'd you ask me, if you were going to reject my answer out of hand and call me a liar?
Constant repetition of this tit-for-tat tribalistic logic doesn't make it any more appealing to your audience, no matter how much sense it makes.
In the end, you're still asking them to do harm to an entity they admire.
No, I'm asking for a cousin swap. How much admiration will there be once it's sunk in that cousin Israel has been sitting in on all the meetings involving the kidnapping of our Cousin Sam?
Frankly, people who can't get behind people wanting the gubbmint to BUTT OUT of decisions that are theirs to make, to keep its sticky paws off what belongs to the people and stop grasping for power beyond its legal mandate, are unAmerican.
ReplyDeleteThat's the real divide, IMO; between Americans who know their rights and know the whole discussion of "racism" is a side-show carney act, and the unAmericans who swallow that crap hook, line, and sinker.
Crap, wrong thread. Ah well, c'est la vie.
ReplyDeleteI think that all of the above proves my initial point - whatever the problem is, it's in the United States, not Israel, which is in many ways admirable, even Svigor agrees with that. Which is all that I was trying to say. And I still think that it's immoral to hold a country "hostage" for doing things that any other country would do under the circumstances. Presumably, what we are trying to preserve here is America and Western Civilization, and the idea of collective racial guilt is NOT an American, Western concept - we should leave that the the "Hate Whitey" crowd. We should focus on thos people who are actually doing the harm, and removing them from power, and not worry about their cousins, relatives, or household pets. That's the American Way...
ReplyDeleteTschafer
Why'd you ask me, if you were going to reject my answer out of hand and call me a liar?
ReplyDeleteTo borrow a page out of Kevin Macdonald: I don't think you're a liar, I think you're engaging in self-deception.
How much admiration will there be once it's sunk in that cousin Israel has been sitting in on all the meetings involving the kidnapping of our Cousin Sam?
Be realistic. The American public didn't turn anti-Israel after the USS Liberty, why would it do so now?
Slippery slope fallacy.
ReplyDeleteNot really. The logical link between each subsequent action couldn't be clearer, with no obvious end point in sight. (Goes without saying it'd stop well short of "a couple hundred," of course -- or would it? Hehe)
There's obviously a split between WNism and what you're criticizing, since the vast majority want to keep our bottom, considering them our problem.
See that's the thing, there really is no universally accepted definition of "white," (particularly not with the widespread intrawhite and white+quasi-white mixing that has taken place) so my logic most definitely applies.
Of course, in reality, many people would 'opt out' on their own, and seek out an identity they're a better fit for than merely 'white,' so that's a big part of the problem solved right there. Nevertheless, the fear and uncertainty created by the prospects of events taking a turn in this direction tends to make people resist thinking seriously about these issues, and encourages hushing up people who do. The trick is to get the ball rolling.
Another answer is to set a reasonable threshold, like "mean IQ above the bar for maintaining an orderly civilization," e.g., 95-100.
You'd require an even greater cultural revolution for that, imo. It's one thing to sort out and reorder people by ethnicity; even though people resist it initially (got good jobs, nice house, good life etc), once it gets going people are likely to get with it. But determining human worth by a number? That's vastly more "nazi." It's really not necessary, either, not in the sense you're suggesting here. (In the context of an established society, where people's places are secure, sure, you won't find a more avid eugenicist than me. But not for picking and choosing who's "good enough" to live.)
Well, Silver, one would assume that the African arrivals are not citizens and that the Black Israelis are - that seems like a pretty good place to start.
ReplyDeleteThere are many good places to start. I'm more concerned with a good place to finish.
As for throwing out the "bottom" of the citizen class, don't be absurd. Every country in the world is so far from this now, bringing it up almost violates Godwin's Law.
I'm not being absurd. I'm just attempting to think things through thoroughly. You realize what a total about face it's going to be, don't you? It's going to dominate thought and discussions for years, probably decades. Only an idiot wouldn't want to think things through thoroughly.
Israel should have every right to say "Israel is the Jewish State. If you're not Jewish, you are not welcome as a permanent resident." Just as the U.S. should have no problem saying "The U.S. has grown great with a certain ethnic and racial balance, and we'd like to keep it that way, so any new immigration has to reflect this". Both the U.S. and Israel did these things within living memory, without leading to genocide or eugenics, and I can't see why it would be so problematic now, at least morally speaking.
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.
Presumably, what we are trying to preserve here is America and Western Civilization, and the idea of collective racial guilt is NOT an American, Western concept - we should leave that the the "Hate Whitey" crowd. We should focus on thos people who are actually doing the harm, and removing them from power, and not worry about their cousins, relatives, or household pets. That's the American Way...
ReplyDeleteI think Svigor would tell you he's trying to preserve, above all, his race.
The rest of your babble is just so much emotional blackmail -- not that a seasoned campaigner like him would expect any less.
I think he has it right. Israel's -- and Jews', collectively ("American Way" or not) -- feet most definitely have to be held to the fire.
The one thing I've long thought Israel has going for her -- in the sense of enabling her to generate sympathy -- is the Arabs. You can try to make peace with these people -- and a lot of honest Israelis have -- but dealing with such recalcitrant bastards would have to be an exercise in purest frustration, as Europeans and Americans are beginning to learn. You're going to spurn the opportunity that provides by continuing to play dumb on white racial survival (which freaks jews out like nothing else on the planet) though.
Why'd you ask me, if you were going to reject my answer out of hand and call me a liar?
ReplyDeleteTo borrow a page out of Kevin Macdonald: I don't think you're a liar, I think you're engaging in self-deception.
So turn to the next page; MacDonald has something behind his argument.
Be realistic. The American public didn't turn anti-Israel after the USS Liberty, why would it do so now?
You're trying to make an already pretty simple argument simpler than it is. The idea is not to turn Americans against Israel (I know the tribal tendency here is to channel arguments you don't like into ones you do; resist the urge), but to bring the facts to light (A,B) and force diaspora Jewry to choose between having their cake, or eating ours. They can't continue to have both. Either Jews get off our backs about ethnopatriotism, or end their ethnostate.
Doesn't it disturb you, knowing facts and truth and honesty can only hurt your tribe's position? Doesn't that sound like a loser, long-term?
You're trying to make an already pretty simple argument simpler than it is.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm telling you your idea won't find support. It won't find support, for the same reason your countrymen put a man with the surname "Eisenhower" in charge of a German-slaying army.
Doesn't it disturb you, knowing facts and truth and honesty can only hurt your tribe's position? Doesn't that sound like a loser, long-term?
What are you talking about? Things that happened in 1917 or 1965? "My tribe" has far greater problems than a few people getting mad about those. The Carmel forest fire is a bigger problem.
See that's the thing, there really is no universally accepted definition of "white," (particularly not with the widespread intrawhite and white+quasi-white mixing that has taken place) so my logic most definitely applies.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's a very important point which WNs without a sense of history often miss.
I haven't researched it thoroughly, but as far as I can tell for most of the twentieth century both Hispanics and South Italians were regarded as being "sort of" white to a pretty similar degree. They were both subject to relatively mild forms of discrimination, varying by geography and individual phenotype, but almost never classified as "nonwhite" with regard to voting, schooling, or marriage laws. And when the 1924 Immigration Act was passed to cut off the inflow of dangerous troublemakers from Europe such as the Jews and Italians, Latin America was completely exempted from restrictions since the Southwestern business interests wanted the supply of cheap labor to continue and no one else much objected.
I remember a couple of years ago I happened to look at an old issue of the Century Magazine from the 1920s, which occupied roughly the same public niche that the Atlantic Monthly does today, and was the venue where Lothrop Stoddard and his friends published many of their major pieces. One of the articles dealt with the large scale Mexican immigration of the time, so I decided to see what sort of bloodcurdling things the scientific racialists of that era were saying before the PeeCee police clamp-down. To my surprise, the article was so totally favorable and pro-Mexican immigrant that it almost made Tamar Jacoby look like Victor Hanson! I've sometimes joked with people what it's easy to imagine a slightly different world in which Tom Tancredez is a prominent politician constantly denouncing the horrors of South Italian immigration to America.
And don't forget that during the monochromatically white-bread world of the 1950s the most popular show on television actually involved the foibles of a racially-mixed couple...
I haven't researched it thoroughly, but as far as I can tell for most of the twentieth century both Hispanics and South Italians were regarded as being "sort of" white to a pretty similar degree.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really silly thing to "regard", since South Italians are in fact white (as in European or Caucasian), while the native Indians of Latin America are not. "Regarding" ain't got nothing to do with it. Things are what they are.
Scientifically speaking the native American aboriginals are close cousins to East Asians. They are not in any sense, and certainly not the visual sense, "sort of white".
don't forget that during the monochromatically white-bread world of the 1950s the most popular show on television actually involved the foibles of a racially-mixed couple
Which two races would those be? Ricky Ricardo was about as non-white as George Washington.
"Hispanic" is a not a race, it's a US government term used to denote all the people from certain countries regardless of race. They don't even need to speak Spanish!
You can be a blond-haired blue-eyed supermodel from Argentina, the daughter of German immigrants to that country, and the US Federal government in its infinite wisdom will place you in the same ethnic category as the vast majority of the people in Latin America - the short, stocky, black haired, black-eyed brown-skinned "Indians".
But then, I'm sure you were already aware of all this. So why are you busy pretending otherwise?
The whole "yeah but what is white?" thing gives me a laugh every time.
ReplyDeleteYeah, let's hold a debate between Ron Unz & his fellow travelers as to who's white and who isn't, and use the result as a working definition. LOL.
Thing is, this is political & cultural war. Our enemies didn't need a universally accepted definition of white to begin the war against us. So why should we need a universally accepted definition of white to fight them?
It's always our enemies, who act as though this is a big deal, a show-stopper.
Want to know who's white? Look at who they're attacking. The gubbmint doesn't use any universally accepted definition of race as they screw us out of our rights. And that's no biggie to Ron. But we've got to stop the presses until we hammer out a universally accepted definition of white.
So let's get into some particulars:
I haven't researched it thoroughly, but as far as I can tell for most of the twentieth century both Hispanics and South Italians were regarded as being "sort of" white to a pretty similar degree.
Who cares?
They were both subject to relatively mild forms of discrimination, varying by geography and individual phenotype, but almost never classified as "nonwhite" with regard to voting, schooling, or marriage laws.
Who cares?
And when the 1924 Immigration Act was passed to cut off the inflow of dangerous troublemakers from Europe such as the Jews and Italians, Latin America was completely exempted from restrictions since the Southwestern business interests wanted the supply of cheap labor to continue and no one else much objected.
Who cares?
I remember a couple of years ago I happened to look at an old issue of the Century Magazine from the 1920s, which occupied roughly the same public niche that the Atlantic Monthly does today, and was the venue where Lothrop Stoddard and his friends published many of their major pieces. One of the articles dealt with the large scale Mexican immigration of the time, so I decided to see what sort of bloodcurdling things the scientific racialists of that era were saying before the PeeCee police clamp-down. To my surprise, the article was so totally favorable and pro-Mexican immigrant that it almost made Tamar Jacoby look like Victor Hanson! I've sometimes joked with people what it's easy to imagine a slightly different world in which Tom Tancredez is a prominent politician constantly denouncing the horrors of South Italian immigration to America.
Who cares?
And don't forget that during the monochromatically white-bread world of the 1950s the most popular show on television actually involved the foibles of a racially-mixed couple...
And finally...who cares?
We'll muddle through figuring out "who's white?" Ron, thanks for your concern. We'll use Israel as our guide.
ReplyDeleteStarting with the fact that, while building momentum via Zionism for their homeland, Jews sure as hell didn't let hashing out "who's a Jew?" slow them down.
Oh, and I'll add, we've already got a pretty good idea who isn't white, Ron. That includes blacks, mestizos, east Asians, south Asians, and you.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really silly thing to "regard", since South Italians are in fact white (as in European or Caucasian), while the native Indians of Latin America are not. "Regarding" ain't got nothing to do with it...Ricky Ricardo was about as non-white as George Washington.
ReplyDeleteWell, most Mexicans and other Latin Americans who come here are Mestizos, being some varying mix of European and Amerind. When I used to see Desi Arnaz on the old reruns, I always thought his phenotype seemed about 3/4 European but maybe I was mistaken. I do remember Sailer quoting some genetic study from a decade or two ago indicating that Hispanics in America back were roughly 60-65% European in ancestry, but that's probably shifted somewhat since so many of the more recent immigrants are much more heavily Amerindian. Interestingly enough, the former percentage would make them rather more European than Ashk Jews.
And a couple of months ago I got a little curious about a book called The Dispossessed Majority, which I'd never heard of but which lots of the WNs were always citing as one of their ur-texts, so I ordered it from Amazon for $10. I didn't read the whole thing, and some of what the author was saying seemed pretty crazy, but overall the quality was far better than I'd expected. His analysis seemed to be that while about half of America's population was true white (basically older stock Americans), there were also groups which were potentially white (Irish and Slavs I think), and others which were semi-white (Jews, Italians, Greeks, Armenians, and such). Now I was hardly surprised that he didn't much like Jews, but was quite shocked at the strength of his negative feelings toward South Italians and other Meds, whom he classified as "Unassimilable Minorities." (By contrast, he had only pretty positive things to say about East Asians.) And even today lots of the WNs always seem to be quarrelling about the Nord/Med divide.
"And even today lots of the WNs always seem to be quarrelling about the Nord/Med divide."
ReplyDeleteDo you guys have a special divide and rule school or is it natural instinct?
"The rest of your babble is just so much emotional blackmail"
ReplyDeleteI guess that if you think that saying that the idea of racial collective guilt is not in accordance with Western or American values is "babble", or any sort of "blackmail" I guess that we don't have much to say to each other. And if you think that frothing irrational denunciations of Israelis for defending themselves is going to accomplish anything with regard to our national suicide, you're dead wrong. Of course, we all see how effective the Paleo right has been over the last twenty years, so by all means keep up the good work.
Tschafer
"And even today lots of the WNs always seem to be quarrelling about the Nord/Med divide."
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the Nordic supremacist/nationalist website Skadi.net. Perused their forums once. They basically talk about Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans in the same manner that most WNs talk about blacks and Hispanics. Also they seem to believe that because of ethnic intermarriage amongst white Americans, the original Anglo-Germanic stock has basically been diluted and therefore made impure. In other words, they view white Americans to be essentially "mestizoes". :)
"Now I was hardly surprised that he didn't much like Jews, but was quite shocked at the strength of his negative feelings toward South Italians and other Meds, whom he classified as "Unassimilable Minorities." (By contrast, he had only pretty positive things to say about East Asians.)"
I've noticed the same thing when it comes to Nordic Supremacists/Nationalists. Hitler certainly had more positive views regarding East Asians than he did regarding many of the non-Nordic/Anglo-Germanic racial groups. Some of the commenters on Skadi.net seemed to express similar views. My general feeling is that Nordic Nationalists tend to view certain non-white racial groups more positively than non-Nordic/Anglo-Germanic whites. In contrast, WNs generally tend to view all non whites more negatively than they do all other white groups.
I hear that Stormfront discourages or bans pro-Nordic material though. ;)
"I guess that if you think that saying that the idea of racial collective guilt is not in accordance with Western or American values is "babble", or any sort of "blackmail" I guess that we don't have much to say to each other."
ReplyDeleteCollective racial guilt has been the absolute bedrock of modern western and American values ever since western values were hijacked by the anti-white ideology of the cultural marxists.
1) Collective and never-ending white racial culpability over the Nazis.
2) Collective and never-ending white racial culpability over the conquest of America etc.
3) Collective and never-ending white racial culpability over slavery.
That collective and permanent racial guilt only ever applies to white people is also part of the bedrock of modern western and American values.
Persoanlly i have no problem with collective racial guilt as long as it applies to everybody, so every black person is guilty for every black crime ever committed and every jewish person is guilty for the jewish activism behind the ongoing attempted global genocide of people of white european descent.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf
I do remember Sailer quoting some genetic study from a decade or two ago indicating that Hispanics in America back were roughly 60-65% European in ancestry
ReplyDeleteThat seems highly doubtful. I expect that the study was biased towards legal Hispanics, who are probably more European. The illegals and even lower class illegals of a decade ago were probably not taking part in genetics studies.
Interestingly enough, the former percentage would make them rather more European than Ashk Jews.
I suppose it would, though I take all these studies with a large grain of salt. I've known too many Jews with red and blond hair who look like they belong in the Scottish Highlands tossing the caber.
a couple of months ago I got a little curious about a book called The Dispossessed Majority, which I'd never heard of but which lots of the WNs were always citing as one of their ur-texts
I don't think much of the WN's myself, for the reasons you describe. They seem to be more interested in picking fights with various white sub-groups than anything else. Don't get them started on the Irish ...
Collective racial guilt has been the absolute bedrock of modern western and American values ever since western values were hijacked by the anti-white ideology of the cultural marxists.
ReplyDelete1) Collective and never-ending white racial culpability over the Nazis.
2) Collective and never-ending white racial culpability over the conquest of America etc.
3) Collective and never-ending white racial culpability over slavery.
That collective and permanent racial guilt only ever applies to white people is also part of the bedrock of modern western and American values.
Yes, this seems a very reasonable and even-handed position to take. As I've said all along, I think that quite a lot of the complaints by WNs are perfectly fair and justified. Others, however, are not. And many are simply based upon factual mistakes or simple ignorance, such as denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act for opening the floodgates to Latin American immigration---ha, ha, ha!
I love the "ignore everything anyone else says, and keep riding my hobby horse and hope no one notices" thing Ron. Keep on keepin' on.
ReplyDeleteYan Shet! I've missed you! I'm so glad we've found a modus vivendi. I'm working on some more tips on how you can serve your primary loyalty (these United States). You need to spread those wings and fly, son. "Cognitive elitism" and open borders and defending the honor of the east Asian race is just the tip of the iceberg m'boy!
"And many are simply based upon factual mistakes or simple ignorance, such as denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act for opening the floodgates to Latin American immigration---ha, ha, ha!"
ReplyDeleteYa, I already savaged that bit of naysaying dissembling, there, Yannie.
See, in 1917, the immigration law banned all drunks, illiterates and other undesirables.
Since the incoming mestizoes are by and large drunks (being of Native American ancestry) and / or illiterate (being dullwitted with an IQ of 85-ish) the 1917 law, had it NOT BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE 1965 LAW, would have kept out our problem quite sufficiently.
But the 1965 law, which upended the ban on undesirables in favor of family reunification, enabled the few Americans of Mexican descent here at the time to legally import their undesirable cousins and brothers-in-law.
These newly-allowed post-'65 drips from Mexico then gave aid and succor to the first wave of illegals in the '70s and early '80s, eroding for them a nice pathway, providing them with housing, procuring fake documents and helping them avoid INS and find work in the underground economy.
Reagan then (may he roast in hell) amnestied the first wave of 1965-enabled illegals, which then provided the leavening for The Blob that's now eating our lunch.
So, indeedy, had the treasonous Cellars not demolished the 1917 law, those 1917 lawmakers had already had the Latin American tsunami well dammed up just by banning undesirables, and we'd not be being swamped now.
"And don't forget that during the monochromatically white-bread world of the 1950s the most popular show on television actually involved the foibles of a racially-mixed couple..."
ReplyDeleteRacially mixed?
Ricky Ricardo was a Cuban, i.e., a Spaniard.
"Reminds me of the Nordic supremacist/nationalist website Skadi.net. Perused their forums once. They basically talk about Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans in the same manner that most WNs talk about blacks and Hispanics."
ReplyDeleteAnd good on 'em. Germanic is a valuable ethnicity. They want to maintain their ethnic qualities by
avoiding admixture, so they should.
"Also they seem to believe that because of ethnic intermarriage amongst white Americans, the original Anglo-Germanic stock has basically been diluted and therefore made impure. In other words, they view white Americans to be essentially "mestizoes". :)"
This is supposed to make White Americans feel bad, right? Because mestizo is an insult, at least the way you're using it. Which just goes to show YOUR supremecist feelings, not the Germanics' at Skadi. In point of fact, they're right. White American is a NEW ethnicity composed of a blend of European Whites.
And we'd like to preserve ourselves just as the Germanics want to, to remain as we are, unmixed with you Asian fellas, thank-you-very-much.
I'm all for Germanic preservation, Slavic preservation, Japanese preservation, Chinese preservation and --
White American preservation.
"I'm all for Germanic preservation, Slavic preservation, Japanese preservation, Chinese preservation and --
ReplyDeleteWhite American preservation."
Yes, but don't you find it kind of sad that everyone else in the world is in touch with their national heritage, while white Americans more or less have lost touch with the European nationalities from which they're descended? I already made the point earlier that the notion of white nationalism would incomprehensible to many Europeans or East Asians for that matter.
"White American is a NEW ethnicity composed of a blend of European Whites."
Which was what men like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard worried about, perhaps rightfully so. It's evident to me that there are clear differences between Southern and Eastern Europeans on the one hand and Anglo-Germanic Northwestern Europeans on the other, in terms of aptitude and behavioral predispositions. According to IQ and Global Inequality, some of the Southern and Eastern European groups have average IQs in the mid 90s, or even slightly lower, which is coming dangerously near Hispanic territory.
I worry that as the original Anglo-Germanic stock in the US becomes further diluted because of intermarriage amongst Anglo-Germanic whites and non-Anglo-Germanic whites that America will become increasingly more dependent upon it's Jewish, East Asian, and South Asian populations. Since I've stated my belief that the US should remain majority non-Hispanic white, this potential slippage certainly is somewhat of a worry.
"but don't you find it kind of sad that everyone else in the world is in touch with their national heritage white Americans more or less have lost touch with the European nationalities "
ReplyDeleteNO. I'm a White American. I AM in touch with my national heritage -- White American. (Used to be called simply American.)
Until nation-busters like yourself demanded entry into my country, we White Americans KNEW who we were. We had no need to keep track of our diverse European ancestries, because there was nobody like yourself trying to claim we don't exist and have no right to keep our country, United States of America, to ourselves and keep you Asians out.
Cross-breeding with southern and eastern (non-Jewish) Euros that you're so generously worried about, is a non-problem. Since few southern or eastern Euros immigrate today, as those countries are quite desirable, and we've already assimilated the ones who came in the 20s, there is no possibility for a substantial increase in Italian blood amongst this ethnicity called White American.
But crossbreeding with you Asians, (and the white/amerindian cross from Mexico) oh, yes, this is eminently destructive of this ethnicity called
White American. This soup is done. We don't WANT your addition of ginger. It'll ruin the soup.
"Since few southern or eastern Euros immigrate today, as those countries are quite desirable, and we've already assimilated the ones who came in the 20s, there is no possibility for a substantial increase in Italian blood amongst this ethnicity called White American."
ReplyDeleteI don't know man. Aren't you being a bit too generous there? Countries like Russia and Ukraine would hardly be considered desirable. Portugals better off, but it isn't exactly first-world either. Wasn't there also a post here recently about Ireland's financial woes, something about the young Irish fleeing the nation in droves because of the economic malaise? But hey, what would I know?
Here's some data. According to the wikipedia, 6% of the total US population today is Italian American. I don't know what the numbers are for other Southern/Eastern European ethnic groups, but it's clear that even without any additional immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe into America, the damage has already been done to a certain extent.
To reiterate my point, WNs are missing the big picture there. You can create a white ethnostate if you want, but if it ends up devolving into Spain/Portugal or Russia/Ukraine, wouldn't that be a Pyrrhic victory at best?
"the damage has already been done."
ReplyDeleteWell, you can characterize it as damage if you want. But, yes, it is what it is. The oregano has already been added, and dissolved, and blended in.
But what right does that give you to further change, further damage, to use your word, us by forcing yourself upon us?
No. The entire argument of WNs is that mestizo, and to an increasing extent now, Asian and East Indian, immigration means the extinction of US, of what we ARE, White Americans, mixture of Euros that we are.
Pyrric victory? No. White America is me and mine. I don't love my children because they're the smartest in their class, even though it's nice they are, but because they are MINE.
I don't love your children, because they are not mine. I don't love you nor your people, because they are not me and mine.
I don't want my kids playing with yours because if they fall in love, the offspring would only be distantly related to me, really, no longer mine.
Even if poor, put-upon White America comes to resemble Ireland, oh, well, that's okay by me. We are all a bunch of yeoman farmers at heart over here, anyway, and we know now how to grow potatoes, even if it's wet and cold. As far as no longer being the World's Policeman, that's a role I'd dearly love to lose.
-- oh, and Russia is healing, anyway.
Yes, but don't you find it kind of sad that everyone else in the world is in touch with their national heritage, while white Americans more or less have lost touch with the European nationalities from which they're descended?
ReplyDeleteIt's strange. You've declared your primary loyalty to be to the United States, yet you only seem interested in criticizing ethnopatriots of European extraction, touting "cognitive elitism," and defending your yellow brethren. You have studiously avoided responding to my attempts to line up a wider (to say the least) selection of ways in which you might pursue American interests.
It's almost as if you either suck (to put it mildly) at pursuing your stated interests, or you're a liar and a yellow supremacist. But we all know that can't be true, since you've already declared where your loyalty lies - you're an American patriot!
I already made the point earlier that the notion of white nationalism would incomprehensible to many Europeans or East Asians for that matter.
And it's such a new, fresh, original point, one which I for one have certainly not been hearing or dealing with on a regular basis since 2001 or thereabouts, when I first started reading WN material in earnest.
So thanks for the tip.
To reiterate my point, WNs are missing the big picture there. You can create a white ethnostate if you want, but if it ends up devolving into Spain/Portugal or Russia/Ukraine, wouldn't that be a Pyrrhic victory at best?
ReplyDeleteNo, you're missing the point. We want our freedom back.
And shouldn't an educated Worthy Oriental Gentleman such as yourself be all about the science? Let a thousand experiments bloom, and whatnot? Whatever happened to testing theories?
@Svigor
ReplyDeleteWho's holding you back and denying you your freedom? If you want the freedom to create an all-white ethnostate in the US, you should probably come to grips with the fact it's nothing more than a pipe dream. No one who's already here legally is going to be kicked out. You could settle for a reasonable compromise and attempt to rally some allies in your fight to curtail immigration into the US. I'm actually highly sympathetic to that point of view. As long as we have limited quotas for a few high IQ immigrants each year, I'd be more than glad to support measures which curtailed immigration at large from anywhere in the world.
"But we all know that can't be true, since you've already declared where your loyalty lies - you're an American patriot!"
Yup, which is why I'm concerned with the well-being of America as a whole. How many WNs today will warn you about the dangers of Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans diluting the Anglo-Germanic stock of US whites? To me, that hidden danger is potentially as worrisome as increased low IQ immigration from the third world. On the other hand though Svigor, your only loyalty seems to be to the white race. America and the white race aren't one and the same. I get the feeling that hypothetically you'd gladly subordinate the US to Europe if only that meant the US could become a white ethnostate in return.
"And shouldn't an educated Worthy Oriental Gentleman such as yourself be all about the science? Let a thousand experiments bloom, and whatnot? Whatever happened to testing theories?"
There's fairly good evidence that Iberian descended whites and certain Eastern European whites are lackluster at best. IQ and Global Inequality shows that some of those groups have IQs in the mid 90s or lower, which as I've stated earlier is dangerously close to Hispanic territory. i get the feeling though that if you could deport all of the jews and east asians and south asians in this nation and replace them with portugese or spaniards or croatians, you'd do so in an instant and wouldn't hesitate twice to promote inbreeding amongst those whites and the rest of white america. That you would inveigh against Hispanic-white interbreeding but not be aware of the other hidden danger is somewhat troublesome.
Now, a true US patriot would factor in the actual well-being of the nation in his analysis. On the other hand, your position seems to be to create a white ethnostate consequences be damned. Hey, if the US ends up devolving into Spain, who cares, as JSM has so greatly put it.
I believe in America the proposition nation and one of the propositions I've articulated is that we should attempt to maximum the empirical well-being of the nation subject to the constraint that the majority of the country remain non-Hispanic white. Sounds like an extremely reasonable compromise to me and one which places due emphasis on the vitality of the US as a whole. On the other hand Svigor, you seem to no sense of identity apart from the white race. I wonder, if the US and Europe and Canada and Australia and New Zealand all decided to merge into the One White Nation, would you even care? It seems to me like you've erroneously equated America and the white race as being one and the same, a position which in my opinion is the true reflection of patriotism gone awry.
You can create a white ethnostate if you want, but if it ends up devolving into Spain/Portugal or Russia/Ukraine, wouldn't that be a Pyrrhic victory at best?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. Is it a Pyrrhic victory for Asians that Asia is divided up into Japan, Korea, China, etc?
White American is a NEW ethnicity composed of a blend of European Whites. - JSM
ReplyDeleteAll the girls round here got self-deprecating names?
Am I right?
This is such a friggin' underappreciated point that I feel the need to shout it from the heavens.
We are a new ethnicity.
We have a tougher road to travel than our grandparents, or at least mine (each of whom fit squarely into a different pre-existing, proud, unashamed ethnic group).
We are our own people, we must choose our own destiny. And to hell with people who say that, because meso-American includes the word "American", that Mexicans and Guatemalans have a claim on the USA. White Americans need a place to live. If only there were somewhere - anywhere. Preferably somewhere close by, and fairly large ... a place we're familiar with. There are lots of us so maybe about half a continent would do. But our best claim would be on a place who institutions and traditions we built ourselves.
Okay, now that I've thought of a place, let's get down to business. Kill affirmative action, stop immigration, institute freedom of association.... In the name of reciprocity, let's divide our three most populous states in half, and allow any state to declare independence.
Who's with me?
"Who's with me?"
ReplyDeleteME!
"Now, a true US patriot would factor in the actual well-being of the nation in his analysis"
ReplyDeleteA true White American patriot would stop pretending that "nation" means "geographical area" instead of "a People."
That's a really silly thing to "regard", since South Italians are in fact white (as in European or Caucasian), while the native Indians of Latin America are not. "Regarding" ain't got nothing to do with it. Things are what they are.
ReplyDeleteSevern, I think with this statement you've pretty much established that you're an idiot to whom no further attention should be paid. That's admittedly a harsh way to put it but if there's one thing racialism needs it is less idiocy.
There are no discrete racial categories, with definitive dividing lines. And even if there were, then it's abundantly obvious that a David Duke and a Joe Torre would never be classified as "the same race."
In fact, if the latter still originated from Italy but came to the US via S. America the same people today proclaiming South Italians are White!!! would be the first to dismiss him.
The whole "yeah but what is white?" thing gives me a laugh every time.
Sure it does, Svigor.
Thing is, this is political & cultural war. Our enemies didn't need a universally accepted definition of white to begin the war against us. So why should we need a universally accepted definition of white to fight them?
You don't, not merely to "fight back." There are plenty of pro-white policy directions that could be taken without anything like a "definition." But I can't see how you could hope to recruit people to support the ethnostate solution without something firmer than "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."
Oh, and I'll add, we've already got a pretty good idea who isn't white, Ron. That includes blacks, mestizos, east Asians, south Asians, and you.
So the same criterion that apparently qualifies the bulk of southern and certain eastern europeans -- "basically" white, ie could be a smattering of exogenous material, but we'll let it slide -- disqualifies Jews. Telling. I can really imagine people getting psyched up to storm the barricades and a strike a blow for a movement they may not even be a part of.
Now I was hardly surprised that he didn't much like Jews, but was quite shocked at the strength of his negative feelings toward South Italians and other Meds, whom he classified as "Unassimilable Minorities."
Even worse if you read their newsletter, Instauration (which only got worse as the years went by). It's like they went out of their way to make it as difficult as is humanly possible to agree with them.
Yes, but don't you find it kind of sad that everyone else in the world is in touch with their national heritage, while white Americans more or less have lost touch with the European nationalities from which they're descended? I already made the point earlier that the notion of white nationalism would incomprehensible to many Europeans or East Asians for that matter.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter that it'd be incomprehensible to people thousands of miles away. That it'd be comprehensible to the people whose problems it is designed to solve is all that matters.
And of course, the notion of "diversity" would be just as "incomprehensible," and for the same reasons, but hey, that doesn't seem to stop you, chenster.
It's evident to me that there are clear differences between Southern and Eastern Europeans on the one hand and Anglo-Germanic Northwestern Europeans on the other, in terms of aptitude and behavioral predispositions.
It's evident to me, too. But then I don't care so much about IQ. I'd rather a society composed of people who look more like myself and whose company is actually enjoyable and whom you don't have to walk on eggshells around than one composed of utterly alien (and alienating) indians and asians no matter how "super intelligent" they may be. If that requires dismembering america or supporting "nazis" (who'd send everyone, me included, packing), so be it.
I think the real reason you're an IQ fetishist is because you think people will find you acceptable or even superior on that basis. The reality is, apart from a handful of "HBD" enthusiasts, most people couldn't give a hoot -- quite rightly, imo.
There are no discrete racial categories, with definitive dividing lines. - Silver
ReplyDeleteWhat is it called that forensic scientists can tell about us when they get a sample of our hair? Genetic cluster? I though that was pretty much the same thing as race. Then again, some small fraction of the population can't be classified, or will be misclassified. Is that what you're talking about when you say "definite"?
And even if there were, then it's abundantly obvious that a David Duke and a Joe Torre would never be classified as "the same race."
If you say. I'd think they could be classified as the same race, different ethnic groups, but nobody agrees on what those terms mean anymore.
Here's a very simple definition for you. If you're eligible for any sort of ethnic/racial based set-aside or diversity category, you're not white. If not, you're white. Groups are generally defined by their opposition, after all. But in practice you don't really need crisp definitions anyway. Neurotypicals don't work in terms of crisp definitions, especially in such fuzzy categories as 'us' and 'them'. Only the non-neurotypical like most of us posting here require such crispness in definition---and the sophist in general I suppose who is trying to avoid manifest reality by complaining that because it is both messy and somewhat slippery that it doesn't really exist, except when he needs it to for rhetorical purposes.
ReplyDelete